"Great Iraqi Victory" a massacre + a cover-up?

[sirs]

<<You're welcome.  Glad to have been of service.  Perhaps now we can move on to more substantive debate . . . >>

Good idea.

Too bad you have such a hard time doing so     

<< or <<surprise>> maybe, just maybe you'll actually be able to substantiate some of your other diatribes vs the standard accusatory innuedo . . . >>

I don't think I leave too much to innuendo, sirs.  What I say, I usually back up with fact and logic. 

OK Tee, you go right ahead and keep believing that.  What ever makes you feel better.  The rest of us will simply keep entertained by it.  The "specific examples" you ask for was pretty much everything related to your supposed validating the Bush lied us into war garbage. 

And if you wish to entertain the folks some more, provide a supposed iron clad fact, hell, even an iron clad circumstantial fact to validate your dren.  Give us your best one.  Not point to some bogus Bushlied web site, and say "there", but pick your best substantiated arguement for how Bush lied us into war.  Go for it.  Watch how fast it gets blown out of the water. 

Or for those watching and reading this, might need to watch how fast Tee goes into his "I already did so numerous times, no need to do it again" tact.  That fits in nicely with the earlier referenced (though now modified for Bush lied ) tactic:

Tee;  Obviously its X.  Fact & Logic says it has to be X

Sirs (or Ami, or Bt, or Plane, or pretty much anyone with an ounce of objectivity);  Here's Y that debunks X

Tee;  Same old same old Sirs, ducking yet another challenge to X

And when attempting to get Tee to again substantiate X, he quickly goes into how he's already done so "with facts and logic on numerous occasions" (read, Tee's mind is made up, don't confuse me with anything that contradicts my made up mind), and doesn't need to do it again.  In other words. Clock --> cleaned.  SOP; distract &/or ignore

And again in our above equation, X= some supposed fact as deduced by Tee, while folks like myself, Plane, Ami, Bt, and company routinely demonstrated the fallacy of X, using Y= those dreaded facts and/or logic and/or reasoning to the contrary , with Tee's standard comeback yet again claiming some overt failing to supposedly debunk his X

And speaking of your inability to face the real world, might as well recognize that Bush in all likelihood DID lie you into a war, as I've demonstrated with fact and logic on numerous occasions, so calling it "garbage" is not going to make the unpalatable truth go away.  

Priceless     

[Michael Tee]

I don't need to limit myself to one fact in presenting the case that Bush lied the U.S. into war.  That's absurd but it's typical of your screwy way of thinking.  If the case is based on circumstantial evidence (as it MUST be in the absence of an actual confession of lying) then one single piece of evidence would not make a strong circumstantial case.

The facts are:
1.  The PNAC plan presented to Clinton during his Presidency calling for the invasion of Iraq;
2.  The number of PNAC members in Bush's administration who signed the letter to Clinton calling for an invasion of Iraq and supporting Bush in his "decsion" to invade Iraq:  Cheney, Perle, Wolfowicz, Rumsfeld, and others.
3.  The huge nuclear arsenal in the possession of the U.S. and the means of delivery
4.  The puny nuclear arsenal in the possession of Saddam even if all the bullshit theorizing was correct and the total absence of any means of delivery to the U.S. mainland.
5.  The total reluctance shown by Saddam towards engaging the U.S. armed forces in any conflict - - the fact that he asked for and got a green light from the U.S. Ambassador before invading Kuwait, and the fact that he wouldn't stand and fight in Kuwait after it became clear that the U.S. adminsitration was either reneging on Ambassador Glaspie's green light or had never authorized it.
6.  The remarks by a Bush administration member regarding the timing of the U.N. campaign for authorization of the use of force to back up the phony "disarmament" demands - - "advertising for a new product starts in September"
7.  The pressure on the U.S. intelligence agencies to come up with evidence linking Saddam to 9-11 as recounted by Richard Clarke

There are more, but it's getting late.  The administration member who testified that immediately after 9-11, the focus in top-level meetings was always on Iraq, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with Sept. 11.  That PLUS the PNAC statement that in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, "a new Pearl Harbor" would have to happen.  The basic craziness of Saddam daring to attack the US with WMD, virtually guaranteeing his own and his country's extermination.

That Bush was a known liar already - - going back to the insider trading scandal in which he lied to the SEC investigators, a federal offence.  That at least some of the evidence Bush relied on was a known forgery (the yellowcake letters) and this had already been pointed out to him before he included it in his State of the Union speech.

The conclusions are virtually indubitable - - Bush lied.  Adn the only point of the lie was to get the American public to approve of the invasion of Iraq.

[BT]

1.  The PNAC plan presented to Clinton during his Presidency calling for the invasion of Iraq;

I don't believe it called for invasion. I believe it called for regime change. Which i believe ended up being offiicial US polcy.

[Plane]

3.  The huge nuclear arsenal in the possession of the U.S. and the means of delivery
4.  The puny nuclear arsenal in the possession of Saddam even if all the bullshit theorizing was correct and the total absence of any means of delivery to the U.S. mainland.
The basic craziness of Saddam daring to attack the US with WMD, virtually guaranteeing his own and his country's extermination.

I don't think that we can depend anymore on ther huge disparity in strength between the US , the free world vs the opposition , as the Lockerbie bombing and 9-11 demonstrate the frustration of a saller enemy can find an outlet .

 When eveluating Saddams wisdom in his choices of whethrto attack te US or not we ought to remember that he was planning to kill retired President Bush and shot at US aircrft on a weekly basis , Saddam actually did do things that garunteed his demise but as a gambler he was prone to roll the dice when he felt that there was a chance of winning.

[sirs]

1.  The PNAC plan presented to Clinton during his Presidency calling for the invasion of Iraq;

I don't believe it called for invasion. I believe it called for regime change. Which i believe ended up being offiicial US polcy.

3.  The huge nuclear arsenal in the possession of the U.S. and the means of delivery
4.  The puny nuclear arsenal in the possession of Saddam even if all the bullshit theorizing was correct and the total absence of any means of delivery to the U.S. mainland.

I don't think that we can depend anymore on ther huge disparity in strength between the US , the free world vs the opposition , as the Lockerbie bombing and 9-11 demonstrate the frustration of a saller enemy can find an outlet .

When eveluating Saddams wisdom in his choices of whethrto attack te US or not we ought to remember that he was planning to kill retired President Bush and shot at US aircrft on a weekly basis , Saddam actually did do things that garunteed his demise but as a gambler he was prone to roll the dice when he felt that there was a chance of winning.

Plane & Bt, shooting fish in a barrel

[sirs]

7.  The pressure on the U.S. intelligence agencies to come up with evidence linking Saddam to 9-11 as recounted by Richard Clarke

Nice effort but false premise.  There never was any nefarious push to link Saddam with 911, nor has any arguement been made by Bush or his administration linking Saddam to 911.  Perhaps what your grasping at is evidence linking Saddam to the presence of WMD which of course is debunked by George Tenet, his own CIA director, assuring him that the case was "a slam dunk." Tenet had the backing of all 15 agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States.

The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, where their collective views were summarized, one of the conclusions offered with "high confidence" was that "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions."

Lawrence Wilkerson, Cheif of Staff to then SoS Powell, indicated "the consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming" in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.

Additional confirmation of this latter point comes from Kenneth Pollack, who served in the National Security Council under Clinton. "In the late spring of 2002, I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes)."

And if it's "well, he tried to manipulate the intel", that pesky fact of the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission keeps gettin in the say of that one.  "no evidence of political pressure to influence the intelligence community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. . . . Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." was their offical and FACTUAL conclusion

That Bush was a known liar already - - going back to the insider trading scandal in which he lied to the SEC investigators, a federal offence. 

Which he was indicted for of course, being a Federal offence and all.  Oh wait

That at least some of the evidence Bush relied on was a known forgery (the yellowcake letters) and this had already been pointed out to him before he included it in his State of the Union speech.

Another lie, since it was never a claim by Bush that Saddam purchased yellow cake, merely attempted to, which is backed up by both the British intel, and surprise, Joseph Wilson as well.  From the Senate Intelligence Committee report:  He [the CIA reports officer] said he judged that the most important fact in the report [by Mr. Wilson] was that Niger officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Niger prime minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium.

And again: The report on [Mr. Wilson's] trip to Niger . . . did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original CIA reports on the uranium deal.

This passage goes on to note that the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research--which did not believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop nuclear weapons--found support in Mr. Wilson's report for its "assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq." But if so, this, as the Butler report quoted above points out, would not mean that Iraq had not tried to buy it--which was the only claim made by British intelligence and then by Mr. Bush in the famous 16 words.

The conclusions are virtually indubitable - - Bush lied.  Adn the only point of the lie was to get the American public to approve of the invasion of Iraq.

No, now were right smack dab back to where you always think your right, despite the overwhelming facts, logic, and reasoning to the contrary.   Keep up the good work.   

[Michael Tee]

Here are the material parts of the actual letter, from "PNAC" on Wikipedia, with a little highlighting by yours truly:

<<In 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the PNAC, including former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, wrote to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argues that an Iraq war would be justified by Hussein's defiance of UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.>>

The 2000 Rebuilding America's Defenses report recommends improved planning. The report states that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".

I am sorry, gentlemen (plane, BT and their little cheerleader sirs) but plainer than that it does not get.  Anybody who thinks that this is not referring to a military invasion after Saddam has been politely asked to resign would have to be certifiably delusional.

<<I don't think that we can depend anymore on ther huge disparity in strength between the US , the free world vs the opposition , as the Lockerbie bombing and 9-11 demonstrate the frustration of a saller enemy can find an outlet. >>

The Lockerbie bombing?  Sept. 11?  What in the name of sweet suffering Jesus do EITHER of these have to do with weapons of mass destruction?  Any country or even any non-country can pull off shit like that, over and over again.  They don't demonstrate shit, unless you were trying to make the point that every country on earth is vulnerable to low-tech terrorism from every other country.  Even when the authors of the Lockerbie bombing were known, there was no nuclear retaliation because it was a small-scale attack.  The subject at hand is an attack on the USA with WMD.  Your examples prove only that no one dares attack the USA except on the most minor level.

<<When eveluating Saddams wisdom in his choices of whethrto attack te US or not we ought to remember that he was planning to kill retired President Bush and shot at US aircrft on a weekly basis >>

AGAIN proving my point that nobody would dare attack the USA with real weapons of mass destruction.  Plotting to kill a retired head of state really is NBD.  Hell, the USA itself plotted to kill a SITTING head of state (Castro) at least fourteen times.  Doesn't even come close to quallifying for retaliatory nuclear anihilation.

<<Plane & Bt, shooting fish in a barrel>>

That's evidently how plane's and BT's responses would appear to a brain-dead moron, sirs, but I don't think that's how they saw it and - - actually - - there ain't no fish and there ain't no barrel.

[Michael Tee]

<<Nice effort but false premise.  There never was any nefarious push to link Saddam with 911 . . . >>

Of course there was.  That was the whole fucking point of Richard Clarke's book.   The administration alleged that al Qaeda reps had met in Prague with Iraqi intelligence prior to Sept. 11 and polls taken of American public opinion after a concerted Bush administration campaign to spread innuendo linking Saddam to 911 even showed that a majority of the Americans polled had bought into that garbage.

<< . . .  nor has any arguement been made by Bush or his administration linking Saddam to 911. >>

That's bullshit and here's a link to a CONSERVATIVE source (Conservative Voice) which recaps the Bush administration's attempts to mislead (lie) the American people into thinking that Saddam was linked to the Sept. 11 attacks:

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/10432.html

<<Perhaps what your grasping at is evidence linking Saddam to the presence of WMD which of course is debunked by George Tenet, his own CIA director, assuring him that the case was "a slam dunk." Tenet had the backing of all 15 agencies involved in gathering intelligence for the United States. >>

Sure they all picked up the same misleading lies planted by the same interested party (the Iraqi National Congress) which was in bed with the Bush Administration, who had hand-picked its convicted swindler leader Ahmed Chalabi to be the head of the new Iraq once the current head of state was removed by force.  AND they were strongly discouraged from picking up anything that didn't fit the preconceived report that Bush and the rest of the lying bastards wanted to have in their hands.

<<The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, BLAH offered with "high confidence" BLAH." Lawrence Wilkerson, BLAH "the consensus  BLAH intelligence community BLAH overwhelming" BLAH an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons BLAH  in all probability well on the way BLAH nuclear capability BLAH Kenneth Pollack, BLAH Iraqi WMD. BLAH twenty former inspectors BLAH a secret centrifuge plant BLAH  secret calutron plant BLAH BLAH>>

What a load of unadulterated garbage.  OF COURSE Saddam had chemical weapons - - the United fucking States HELPED him to get them.  Every country will work to perfect its armed forces and its weaponry and Iraq was no exception.  There is no indication in any of that ton of bullshit that Saddam planned to attack the U.S.A.  None.

<<And if it's "well, he tried to manipulate the intel">>

Uh, yeah, sirs, I'm afraid it is.

<< . . .  that pesky fact of the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission . . . >>

Oh, yeah, the BIPARTISAN Robb-Silverman commission.  As if the decision to invade Iraq itself was not bipartisan.  Unfortunately there is no partisanship in the Middle Eastern policies of the US, so a "bipartisan" commission is really the War Party investigating the War Party.

<<Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." was their offical and FACTUAL conclusion>>

Unfortunately there was nothing FACTUAL about it - - http://mediamatters.org/items/200603060001  Significant evidence to the contrary was simply buried by the "bipartisan" commission.  Not only was there pressure on the analysts but the results were cherry-picked by the administration.  That almost all of the intelligence relied on by the Bush administration emanated from a single, interested source (Iraqi National Congress) was never mentioned by Bush or his administration in any public address.

<<Which [lying to the SEC investigators] he was indicted for of course, being a Federal offence and all.  >>

Confused again, sirs?  The issue was whether Bush is a liar, not whether his family connections can save his ass.

<<Another lie, [that the yellowcake letters on which Bush relied were a forgery] since it was never a claim by Bush that Saddam purchased yellow cake, merely attempted to . . .  >>

Actually, the liar is YOU because the yellowcake letters (which I never claimed represented an actual purchase) were in fact forgeries and Bush did in fact rely upon them.  Bush relied upon forged documents and at a time when he had been told that their authenticity was in question.  You created a little straw man there (that the letters were proof of an attempt to purchase, not an actual purchase) but that was never an issue as to that because I never claimed the forgeries related to an actual purchase, neither did Bush.  You are truly pathetic.

Just to digress for one instant - - you just accused me again of lying.  "Another lie"  were your actual words.  Of course there was no lie.  What I said stands up:  the letter (which I never claimed was an attempt to prove an actual purchase) was a forgery and it was used by Bush to prove an attempt by Saddam to buy yellowcake from Niger.  You called that a lie.  It wasn't a lie.
Generally speaking, I enjoy debate, even with - - especially with - - people who will challenge me at every turn.  Like plane, like BT or others.  In your case, however, I find that you are a lying, weak, stupid, despicable and repulsive individual with no respect for the truth and no hestitation in falsely branding anyone who disagrees with you a liar.  I suddenly realized in the midst of the post that I was being thoroughly sickened by having to respond to you, and I also realized if that's how it makes me feel, then why bother?  So the rest of my answer will be short, simple and to the point, although not really responsive and reasoned:  Go fuck yourself.

[sirs]

<<Nice effort but false premise.  There never was any nefarious push to link Saddam with 911 . . . >>

Of course there was.  That was the whole fucking point of Richard Clarke's book.   The administration alleged that al Qaeda reps had met in Prague with Iraqi intelligence prior to Sept. 11

Of course there wasn't.  Were these "Iraqi intel folks" under orders of Saddam?  Who were these AlQeada reps?  Who's made that claim of 911 <--> Saddam??  Show us this connection being made, not just innuendo.  You wouldn't even be able to indict a ham sandwich with that kind of vagueness

and polls taken of American public opinion after a concerted Bush administration campaign to spread innuendo linking Saddam to 911 even showed that a majority of the Americans polled had bought into that garbage.

Polls are nothing more than a snap shot of a portion of folks who think something at a particular time.  It's simply a snapshot of some portion of group mindset at that particular time.  That's all.  IT PROVES NADA, ZIP, ZILCH.  Don't believe me, trying using regional poll to get a conviction of a particular criminal case.  Hell, Civil Case.  You can't, because a poll doesn't allow for those polled to have access to all the intangibles, facts, specifics, EVIDENCE.   

That's bullshit and here's a link to a CONSERVATIVE source (Conservative Voice) which recaps the Bush administration's attempts to mislead (lie) the American people into thinking that Saddam was linked to the Sept. 11 attacks: http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/10432.html

Editorial debunked by the FACTUAL Robb-Silberman commission conclusions

Sure they all picked up the same misleading lies planted by the same interested party (the Iraqi National Congress) which was in bed with the Bush Administration

Boy, you sure proclaim a ton of folks, including that of the French, Russians, Germans, and your UN folk of being even more a moron than Bush, if they bought into everything Bush.  And for those reading this fine tidbit from Tee, notice NOT 1 SHRED OF PROOF TO HIS CLAIM.  Not even circumstantial evidence.  Just his verson of "logic", and what he argues as "reasoning".  Don't worry, it gets better down the road here

..who had hand-picked its convicted swindler leader Ahmed Chalabi to be the head of the new Iraq once the current head of state was removed by force. 

And with all this power that the U.S. is supposedly wielding, that's why Chalabi is now in charge of Iraq.  Oh wait

AND they were strongly discouraged from picking up anything that didn't fit the preconceived report that Bush and the rest of the lying bastards wanted to have in their hands.

proof?....evidence?....anything even remotely resembling rational objective thought??

<<The National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, BLAH offered with "high confidence" BLAH." Lawrence Wilkerson, BLAH "the consensus  BLAH intelligence community BLAH overwhelming" BLAH an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons BLAH  in all probability well on the way BLAH nuclear capability BLAH Kenneth Pollack, BLAH Iraqi WMD. BLAH twenty former inspectors BLAH a secret centrifuge plant BLAH  secret calutron plant BLAH BLAH>>  What a load of unadulterated garbage.  OF COURSE Saddam had chemical weapons

Well, that's a small victory I guess

is no indication in any of that ton of bullshit that Saddam planned to attack the U.S.A.  None.

Which of course also dovetails nicely into AT NO TIME DID USA CLAIM SADDAM WAS PLANNING TO ATTACK THE USA.  NONE.  This folks, is more examples of that Tee-leaf logic masguerading as "reasoning" to Tee, I referenced earlier, since he's not going to be able to provide any quote to such, only a reference by Condi or Bush in wanting to prevent a mushroom cloud from occuring before we realize the danger Saddam could become to the region

<<And if it's "well, he tried to manipulate the intel". . .  that pesky fact of the bipartisan Robb-Silberman commission . . . >>>>

Uh, yeah, sirs, I'm afraid it is.  Oh, yeah, the BIPARTISAN Robb-Silverman commission.  As if the decision to invade Iraq itself was not bipartisan.  Unfortunately there is no partisanship in the Middle Eastern policies of the US, so a "bipartisan" commission is really the War Party investigating the War Party.

See?  Here again is Tee at his normal approach to debating this issue.  It's not bi-partisan because he says its not.  You can't accept their official conclusions, because he says you can't.  He has concluded, minus any assemblence of proof or facts to support such, that the Commission simply white-washed the whole thing.  He has to believe that because the template is already in place.  Bush is evil, American military is Evil, ergo, anything that supports what Bush has done or clears Bush from anything sinisters, is to be declared null & void, no evidence necessary.  Anything & everything else is to be rationalized & justified

<<Analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments." was their offical and FACTUAL conclusion>>

Unfortunately there was nothing FACTUAL about it - - http://mediamatters.org/items/200603060001 

Yep, let's pull up the infamous leftist web site to support a leftist claim.  Way to go Tee

Significant evidence to the contrary was simply buried by the "bipartisan" commission.  Not only was there pressure on the analysts but the results were cherry-picked by the administration.  That almost all of the intelligence relied on by the Bush administration emanated from a single, interested source (Iraqi National Congress) was never mentioned by Bush or his administration in any public address.

Which again is debunked by the NIE and the near concensus by the global intelligence community on the disposition of Saddam's WMD.  What is this "buried evidence"?     Sorry Tee, I'm going with the FACTUAL Global reports, and bi-partisan commisions over your OPINIONATED editiorials and left wing web links.

<<Which [lying to the SEC investigators] he was indicted for of course, being a Federal offence and all.  >>

Confused again, sirs?  The issue was whether Bush is a liar, not whether his family connections can save his ass.

I guess the confused one here is you, minus again any facts or evidence, just that omnipotent Tee-leaf logic, since you're claiming Bush lied to the SEC, thus committed a felony, thus the follow-up indictment.  Ooooops.  See, no proof necessary, just Tee's say so that daddy saved him

Actually, the liar is YOU because the yellowcake letters (which I never claimed represented an actual purchase) were in fact forgeries and Bush did in fact rely upon them.  Bush relied upon forged documents and at a time when he had been told that their authenticity was in question.  You created a little straw man there

No, I simply presented THE FACTS.  You know, those pesky things that keep getting in the way of how evil Bush is supposed to be.  FACT IS Bush never claimed Saddam purchased yellow cake.  FACT IS, the intel used demonstrated Saddam attempted to.  FACT IS that's what Bush claimed in his SOTU.  FACT IS the British intel backs up that claim.  FACT IS, so did Wilson ironically

Just to digress for one instant - - you just accused me again of lying.  "Another lie"  were your actual words.  Of course there was no lie.  

Yes there was.  You want to call it an egregious distortion on your part instead?, fine.  The real liar in this is Joseph Wilson.  But don't let that stop you.  You're on a roll

In your case, however, I find that you are a lying, weak, stupid, despicable and repulsive individual with no respect for the truth and no hestitation in falsely branding anyone who disagrees with you a liar. 

Only to those that do, and are too ideologically blind to rationally debate this issue.  Only to those who are so blinded by vitriolic hatred for the man Bush, that he's compared to a moronic version of Hitler.  Only to those who blindly insists X (such as Bush claims Saddam is going to attack the USA), when Y consistently debunks X.  Only to those who insist on implying their accusatory opinions as well established fact (Sun will rise = Bush is a liar), that's consistently refuted by a overwehlming amount of facts/evidence/logic to the contrary

I suddenly realized in the midst of the post that I was being thoroughly sickened by having to respond to you, and I also realized if that's how it makes me feel, then why bother?  So the rest of my answer will be short, simple and to the point, although not really responsive and reasoned:  Go fuck yourself.

And to the rest of our saloon patrons here, they'll note at no time did I ever stoop to such a vulgar low.  So there's the gammit of Tee's "reasoning & logic" when argueing the case of how Bush lied us into war.  Selected facts, reference to a book, editorials, and a LW web site, and the cou-de-gra, how it's all 1 big massive governmental cover-up, with all those poor European & UN blokes duped by that moron Bush.  All of course, with not 1 shred of proof, outside of Tee's say so & Tee-leave logic.  Whatever makes you feel better, Tee


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And may I add, if Bt, or Plane, or Js believe I've crossed some repulsive line, that I can't see (I concede my consistent condescending tone, in pretty much all my posts), I offer myself to whatever disciplinary action is deemed appropriate

[Michael Tee]

<<Were these "Iraqi intel folks" under orders of Saddam?  Who were these AlQeada reps?  Who's made that claim of 911 <--> Saddam??  >>

The only point of releasing this information in the first place was to create the impression that Saddam was behind 9-11.  Why else was it of the remotest interest to anyone?

<<Show us this connection being made, not just innuendo. >>

The claim that invading Iraq is part of the "War on Terror" is itself an attempt to link the two. 

<<Polls are nothing more than a snap shot of a portion of folks who think something at a particular time.  >>

Only to a complete moron.  To anybody who can think, polls can show a lot more than that.  They can measure, for example, the success of an advertising campaign.  It is no accident that most of the people polled thought that Saddam was connected to 9-11.  After a lengthy brainwashing campaign of Bush bullshit, the people polled - - who normally wouldn't have had a clue about WHAT Saddam was up to and couldn't have cared less - - had come to believe this elaborately concocted hoax and the polls proved it.

<<Editorial debunked by the FACTUAL Robb-Silberman commission conclusions >>

Typical.  The editorial points to evidence completely overlooked by the Robb-Silverman commission.  Sirs refutes this by merely stating "editorial debunked."   And "debunked" by no less than the very commission that the editorial had attacked.  As if the all-knowing Robb-Silverman commission had been able to look into the future, read the editorial that found fault with it, and "debunk" the editorial before it was written.  ("Debunk" BTW is sirs' very favourite word.  Apparently it means "contradicted magically with no argument or evidence.")

<<Boy, you sure proclaim a ton of folks, including that of the French, Russians, Germans, and your UN folk of being even more a moron than Bush, if they bought into everything Bush. >>

Apparently not.  None of them bet half a trillion bucks on it and went to war over it.  And speaking about "without a shred of evidence," just WHERE is the evidence that "a ton of folks, including that of the French, Russians, Germans, and your UN folk" ever DID buy into the crock of shit that your "President" did?  I've got a feeling that's as much of a crock of shit as the rest of your so-called "FACTS."

<<And with all this power that the U.S. is supposedly wielding, that's why Chalabi is now in charge of Iraq.>>

Proving yet again that the great power of the U.S. isn't as great as they think it is; and also proving that the great power of the country's military is matched only by the awesome stupidity of its current leadership.  And I thank you for making that point so eloquently.

<<proof?....evidence?....anything even remotely resembling rational objective thought [that U.S. intelligence officers were discouraged from picking up facts that contradicted the lies of the Bush administration]??>>

Ahh, short attention span, sirs?  Poor short-term memory?  Richard Clarke, remember?   The saga of Valerie Plame and her globe-trotting husband, who found the wrong facts and wound up with his wife's cover blown.

<<Which of course also dovetails nicely into AT NO TIME DID USA CLAIM SADDAM WAS PLANNING TO ATTACK THE USA.  NONE>>

Hilarious.  Condi's reference to a "mushroom cloud" didn't mean a mushroom cloud over the U.S.A.  She was talking about the horrible effect on the environment, on marine ecosystems if Saddam exploded a nuclear weapon over the open ocean.  We all knew that.  We had to attack Saddam to save the whales!  NOBODY in the administration ever implied the nuclear weapons in Saddam's hands were a threat to the U.S.A.   Why, that's ABSURD!  Sirs, as a comedian, I think you are no. 1 in the business.

<<See?  Here again is Tee at his normal approach to debating this issue.  It's [the Robb-Silverman commission] not bi-partisan because he says its not. >>

What I'm really saying is that "bi-partisan" is a misleading term when BOTH parties supported the war effort.  As I stated before, what you really had was the War Party investigating the War Party.  The commission was not out to dig up skeletons or affix blame because the leaders of BOTH parties shared the blame.  If Bush lied then the Republicans would look bad for having a liar as their leader and the Democrats would look bad for rolling over for his obvious lies.  They both had the same interests - - sell the fiction of bad intelligence, not the truth of a lying "President."  May I say that nothing in your foolish and childish rant rebuts any of this simple and basic idea.

<<Yep, let's pull up the infamous leftist web site to support a leftist claim.  Way to go Tee>>

mediamatters.org (to which I gave the link) effectively demolished the lie that the Robb-Silverman commission's conclusions as to whether or not the President lied can be trusted.  First of all by pointing out that the commission's mandate DID NOT INCLUDE deciding that issue.  Sirs, in his usual moronic fashion, settles the issue, not by dealing with the factual allegations made by the site, but simply by attacking the site as "infamous leftist."  I suppose to a moron that is some kind of logic, however most intelligent sane and normal individuals will not find it very convincing.

[I'm going to skip a few of sirs' more egregious idiocies here simply for lack of time and the fact that they're repetitious and overlapping with his earlier garbage]

<<I guess the confused one here is you, minus again any facts or evidence, just that omnipotent Tee-leaf logic, since you're claiming Bush lied to the SEC, thus committed a felony, thus the follow-up indictment.  Ooooops.  See, no proof necessary, just Tee's say so that daddy saved him>>

The facts that Bush lied to the SEC investigators are well-known and can be found anywhere on the web.  If I have time later, I will dig them out myself.  How he was saved from indictment is not a matter of record, although the fact that the commission counsel was also the Bush family lawyer might (to suspicious minds like mine) have had something to do with it.  To morons, of course, that would have had nothing to do with it.  It would be easier to believe that the offence was never committed than that family connections could save a guy like Bush from prosecution.  In America?  Never!!!  (So think the morons of the world.)

The rest of the post is not worth responding to.  Sirs calls me a liar, I tell him to go fuck himself. Sirs repeats the slur, so I close this post by repeating my earlier counsel to him.










 

[Amianthus]

The facts that Bush lied to the SEC investigators are well-known and can be found anywhere on the web.  If I have time later, I will dig them out myself.

Please do. When I went searching the other day, I found plenty of blogs that re-iterated the claim - without any evidence - and a number of news articles that stated the records were sealed so it was not known what was said.

[Michael Tee]

If you've got even a little time for this - - mine ran out almost an hour ago - - search for a Vanity Fair link to the story, because I believe that's where I found it.  If you don't, NBD.  It's really my allegation, so I should be the one looking.

[Michael Tee]

Still trying to find the source of the "Bush lied to SEC investigators" story, but in the meantime I've come across more Bush lies that I didn't even know about.  For example:

1.  Bush lied about being exonerated by the SEC:

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh070802.shtml

In his 1994 gubernatorial debate with Ann Richards, Candidate Bush misstated the contents of an SEC letter about its probe of his sale. Bush’s campaign had asked the SEC to issue a statement about the matter. In a letter to Bush’s lawyer, the SEC said, “the investigation has been terminated as to the conduct of Mr. Bush, and…at this time, no enforcement action is contemplated with respect to him.” But the letter also said that this “must in no way be construed as indicating that the party has been exonerated or that no action may ultimately result.” Despite this, Bush explicitly said, during the Richards debate, that he had been “exonerated” by the SEC’s probe. Why, you could almost say he embellished the facts! Richards corrected his error.

2.  http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#drunk

Lying Under Oath. Bush & Co. Squelch Investigation of Contributor's Funeral Homes
In a (so far successful) attempt to stop a scandal, Bush perjured himself under oath, according to the sworn testimony of two of his political allies. The situation is amazingly similar to Clinton's Lewinsky problem: a potentially damaging lawuit arose (see below) that threatened to involve him. Just like Clinton, Bush swore an affidavit that he had no involvement in the case, which got him excused from testifying. And just like Clinton, the affidavit was proven false months later by new evidence. In this case, it's the recent sworn testimony of Robert MacNeil, a Bush appointee, that he had discussed the case with Bush at a fundraiser.

NOTE:  This last story is fairly complex and you need to go to the website to get the whole train of events.

In addition to the above, there were plenty of stories about Bush's drug and alcohol use, his drunk driving arrest and his lies to cover them up, but I think those kind of stories are kind of distasteful.  They're the kind of skeletons a lot of us have in our closets and it's just kind of cheesey to bring them up now.  The guy's a married man and a father, so it's natural he wouldn't want to admit to a lot of that stuff and to be frank, I give him credit for cleaning up his act and rising to the top, even as a President's son, because it's a very competitive field.

[sirs]

<<Were these "Iraqi intel folks" under orders of Saddam?  Who were these AlQeada reps?  Who's made that claim of 911 <--> Saddam??  >>

The only point of releasing this information in the first place was to create the impression that Saddam was behind 9-11.  Why else was it of the remotest interest to anyone?  The claim that invading Iraq is part of the "War on Terror" is itself an attempt to link the two. 

See?  This is the best Tee can do.  Tee leaf logic is the most accurate labeling that can be applied.  For those of us who actually could seperate the war on Terror, and why we went into Iraq, we're simply dismissed.  For those of us who knew precisely what Bush was stating in both his SOTU's and numerous Press Conferences, where he provided his clear cut reasons for why we went into Iraq, again, that ability to comprehend it all is to be ignored.  Because Tee, has devined, via connecting his non-existant dots
- Bush completely buffalowed all the Eurpean nations and the UN
- Bush alone knew there were no WMD, but took us to war anyways, while everyone else who claimed the same thing were simply wrong or misled by the moron Bush
- Bush lied about yellowcake despite his claims being backed up by the British Intel and Joseph Wilson
- Bush manipulated the intel despite clearance from every comission and investigative body that concluded otherwise
- The U.S. planted a puppet Government in Iraq, despite the fact that their fella to run it was blown away in the elections
- And of course, it's all to get the oil, despite the fact we had the military ability to simply annex the fields at any time.  Claim it's our payment for ridding them of their dictator

The all seeing all knowing Tee knows.........because the template is in place.  Bush is evil, American military is evil, everything has to stem from that position.  Why?  Because Tee says so

The rest of the post is not worth responding to as it's simply laced with the same "I-know-best, go f'off" arrogant tone, so we'll leave things here for the rest of the rationally minded to digest it all.  Keep up the excellent work, Tee











 

[Michael Tee]

<<See?  This is the best Tee can do.  Tee leaf logic is the most accurate labeling that can be applied. >>

The logic is unassailable.  Information about Iraqi intelligence meeting with al Qaeda in Prague prior to 9-11 was released for only one possible reason - - to convince the public (as subsequent polls showed that it did) that Iraq was behind 9-11 and therefore could legitimately be invaded.

Faced with such unanswerable logic, sirs has only one recourse - - obviously, not to argue with it, which would make him look even more foolish than he already does - - but to resort to some meaningless rhetoric, such as "see?  this is the best Tee can do.  Tea leaf logic."  Can anyone imagine a more moronic response?

<< For those of us who actually could seperate the war on Terror, and why we went into Iraq, we're simply dismissed.>>

Simply dismissed?  Now you're hurting my feelings, making me feel unappreciated.  I actually spent a good deal of effort showing in great detail why and where you and your fellow wingnuts went wrong.  Is it all for naught?  Next time, you WILL be "simply dismissed."  Why the hell should I waste my time compiling facts and applying logic, only to see it all go unacknowledged and my efforts summed up as a simple dismissal?

<<  For those of us who knew precisely what Bush was stating in both his SOTU's and numerous Press Conferences, where he provided his clear cut reasons for why we went into Iraq, again, that ability to comprehend it all is to be ignored.>>

Not at all.  I believe you comprehended what Bush said.  Your fault lies in believing it.  Against all common sense and against all evidence to the contrary.

<<Because Tee, has devined, via connecting his non-existant dots>>

The dots exist alright.  You just don't like the way I connected them.

<<- Bush completely buffalowed all the Eurpean nations and the UN>>

Obviously not because none of them believed that the urgency of the situation necessitated an invasion.

<<- Bush alone knew there were no WMD, but took us to war anyways, while everyone else who claimed the same thing were simply wrong or misled by the moron Bush>>

Bush wasn't alone in knowing the whole thing was a crock.  He didn't even dream up the crock, that was done for him by the PNAC.  And I'm not sure how many others were actually misled by Bush or actually went along for calculated political reasons, cowardice or opportunism or maybe just cunning - - I don't think too many people outside of the true believers in his base were actually misled.

<<- Bush lied about yellowcake despite his claims being backed up by the British Intel and Joseph Wilson>>

Not exactly.  Bush used documents that he knew were fakes to bolster a claim about Saddam's previous attempts to buy yellowcake.  Do you deliberately misrepresent every one of my arguments or is it an unconscious reflex of yours?

<<- Bush manipulated the intel despite clearance from every comission and investigative body that concluded otherwise>>

all two of them?  Hey, can you spell "whitewash?"  Were there any real critics of the establishment on any of these commissions, any Noam Chomsky's, any Ralph Naders, any Cindy Sheehans?  LMFAO.  The War Party investigated the War Party and found:  Absolutely.  Nothing.  Wrong.   Whooooeee!!!  Vindicated at last!

<<- The U.S. planted a puppet Government in Iraq, despite the fact that their fella to run it was blown away in the elections>>

How about they TRIED to force this guy onto the Iraqis and were too fucking stupid to realize they not only lacked the power to militarily subdue the country, they couldn't even force their stooge down the throats of their own puppets.  Which, BTW, should be one of the telltale little signs that says "foredoomed to failure" that most "leftists" have been predicting since Day One.  Despite all of your foolish cheerleading, denials, Churchill allegories and other ridiculous nonsense.

<<- And of course, it's all to get the oil, despite the fact we had the military ability to simply annex the fields at any time.  >>

You did?  Seems to me it's a tad more difficult than your moron "President" and his "advisers" thought it would be.  And OF COURSE it's all to get the oil.  No other "reason" will stand up to the test of fact and logic.

<<Claim it's our payment for ridding them of their dictator>>

Good thing they're not as stupid as you are.  They won't claim any such thing because they won't admit to stealing the oil in the first place.  They bring "democracy" to Iraq and the "democratically elected" Iraqi government then gives away the oil in sweetheart deals to "multinational" oil companies, 90% of which "happen" to be American-owned AND good friends of Bush and Cheney and hey that's "democracy" - - the "independent" Iraqi government struck a deal with the "multinational" and good deal or bad deal, it's nothing to do with the U.S. government any more.  THAT'S how things happen in the real world, sirs.  Get used to it.